Today a shorter post than I normally write. This is due to my work on a series of posts on a specific industry, which I want to kick off with a post on how to describe an industry. I am not satisfied with the result yet, so you have to wait a little longer for that post. There has been a book I wanted to write about for quite some time now, so I use this opportunity to do just that.
Alternative allocation has always been a fascinating concept to me. The insight that resources can be allocated in different ways is central to the fundamental theme of economics: choice. I used to think that economic choice was equivalent to the concept of economic scarcity. However, discussing allocation systems made me realise that this may not be that obvious.
A few days ago it was pointed out to us that the doughnut was not a model but a normative framework. Since we believe it is extremely important to teach young people the difference between normative and positive statements, this is an important insight. Therefore, it will not surprise you that we are very much aware of this. This is actually the reason why we prefer to say a 21st century economics education should be based on the doughnut framework.
In the Dutch specification of the subject of economics, we have identified the concept of ‘exchange over time’. This concept is used to designate transactions where we exchange future consumption with current consumption, which is what we do when we take out a loan to buy for example consumer goods, or the other way around, which is what we do when we save up money. How can we apply this concept in a broader sense?
We teach our students that absolute advantage is an important driver of international trade. With the ecological ceiling in mind, we might need to revisit this concept to make it 21st century proof.
As part of the research I did when writing my post on ecological protectionism, I read a report of the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) on the EU carbon tax. This report introduced the interesting concept of the ‘profit pool’.
When we want to stay in the doughnut, we need to mitigate climate change and the overshoot in the other eight elements of the ecological ceiling. Countries can take measures by themselves, but when others do not put in the same effort, this is likely not enough.
One of the questions we have asked ourselves is: “Does a 21st century economics education based on the doughnut framework change the concept of economic scarcity?”
If you follow our posts, you are aware that the last post was about the nitrogen cycle. More specifically: what should a lesson on the nitrogen cycle look like? The question before that was if the biogeochemical cycles should be part of a 21st century economics education. I gave some reasons why I believe…
In my latest post on the ecological ceiling, I introduced the Crash Course Ecology as a way to educate students on ecology. One of the comments I received on that post was that the Crash Course is extremely high paced, which may be an issue with students who are new to the subject. Therefore, I asked myself, what would a slower paced series of lessons look like?